120. On Sins to be Confessed

1. Germana, an old woman, confesses thus: Father, she says, I performed the penance imposed on me; I faithfully recited morning and evening prayers; each day I also recited the rosary and attended Mass. Yet I have committed many imperfections, not obeying divine inspirations; perhaps I also had distractions in reciting prayers, but I do not know; I also sometimes had evil thoughts against the charity of neighbor; but I rejected them. I confess that we are all sinners, born in sin from Adam, and therefore I ask for absolution and penance. The confessor asks and urges Germana to declare some sin of her past life in species; but he obtains from her no other answer besides this: Father, I have already said everything; nothing remains for me to say.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Germana cannot be given the benefit of absolution from the preceding confession, because the certain matter of the sacrament is lacking. For the distractions in reciting prayers which she accuses, she accuses only doubtfully and with an entirely negative doubt. Generally, all uncertain or doubtful sins are insufficient matter; for upon them absolution cannot be given without exposing the sacrament to the danger of nullity. Although it is indeed best to accuse oneself also of non-correspondence to divine inspirations concerning works of counsel, nevertheless this does not constitute sufficient matter of absolution, because, speaking in itself, it is not a sin not to correspond to divine inspirations concerning works of counsel, contempt of them being excluded. But the rest which Germana accuses contains no sin, but an act of virtue. Therefore Germana, since she has accused no sin, even after the insistence of the confessor, is to be dismissed with only a blessing, leave being given to her that she may approach communion. G. 378; I. M. 666, 667.

2. Justinus, distinguished for piety and fervor, frequently wishes to confess in order to obtain the benefit of absolution. But, since rather often he finds in his conscience no fault voluntarily admitted, he is accustomed to accuse himself thus: I accuse myself of all the sins by which I offended God in my past life, chiefly of sins formerly committed against chastity. If he confesses before his ordinary confessor, he says only: I accuse myself of the sins of my whole life, especially of the graver ones, which at other times I have already confessed. Indeed sometimes he says only: I accuse myself of sins committed in my whole life, and I ask for holy absolution.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Since Justinus is free from mortal sins, his accusation is sufficient. For there is question not of necessary matter, but of free matter; and therefore he is not bound to declare sins in their lowest species. "The lowest species of each sin," says D'Annibale, n. 303, "is to be explained, and, if the lowest is lacking or has slipped away, the highest; and if this also has slipped away, the sin in general, e.g., I detracted - I sinned against justice - I sinned mortally. - Wherefore for him who does not have necessary matter, it is enough to say, I have sinned." It is useful, however, in order that the sacrament of penance may be received with greater fruit, to declare at least some sins in species. G. 381-383; I. M. 666, 673.

Hence it is clear that a penitent is to be absolved who, on account of ignorance and rudeness and natural stupidity, on account of old age and weakness of memory, has absolutely no knowledge or memory of any sin in species or in particular, and confesses that he has sinned by thoughts, words, and deeds. The confessor is then bound to supply the defect of the penitent by proposing to him some specific sins into which it may prudently be suspected that he formerly fell; e.g., do you not accuse yourself of all sins committed against God, against neighbor; against charity, against chastity, against justice; by lies, imprecations, blasphemies, etc. And if the penitent answers that he accuses himself of all, and is sorry for all, let him be absolved. For although so general and too confused an accusation does not suffice in itself, nevertheless on account of moral impotence it is sufficient. The confessor, moreover, will act very well if he helps such a person, especially if he is sick and in danger of death, to elicit not only an act of contrition, but also acts of faith, hope, and charity, before he absolves him. G. 384, 385; Elbel 15; Reuter 303.

3. Sins after doubtful baptism - Titius, a Frenchman by nation, but a Lutheran by religion, staying at Rome and very desirous of embracing the Catholic faith, approaches Caius the parish priest and opens his mind to him. Caius, from conversations had with him, seriously doubts the validity of the baptism conferred on him by a Lutheran minister. Hence he exhorts him to dispose himself both to receive baptism again under condition, and to make a general confession of his whole life. Titius promises that he will do the first, but he is very much afraid of the confession of the sins of his past life; yet he is prepared in mind duly to accuse all sins into which he may fall after baptism has without doubt been validly received. Caius indeed would wish still to insist; yet, fearing lest Titius, because of the difficulty of confession, be deterred from conversion, he judges it better to desist from his proposal.

After some days another parish priest, a friend of Caius, learning these things, rebukes him, as if he had conducted himself badly, and urges the obligation of an integral confession in Titius, especially on account of the very recent decree issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office under the date Dec. 17, 1868; after which decree he thinks that the controversy previously agitated among theologians must be held as already defined. But Caius on the contrary objects that the general controversy was not settled by a decree of this kind, since it was given for Neo-Converts in England, on account of special reasons of that region. Hence he infers that it has no force for Gaul; indeed neither is it to be applied to Catholics as regards sins not yet confessed by them, if perhaps in doubt of a preceding baptism they are to be rebaptized under condition.

It is asked: 1. Whether an integral sacramental confession is to be required from neo-converts to be rebaptized under condition? - 2. Whether confession, if it is made, is to be put before or after baptism? - 3. Whether Caius rightly interpreted the aforesaid decree?

R. to the 1st. An integral sacramental confession is indeed to be required from neo-converts in England who are to be rebaptized under condition. This is clear first from the Decree of the first Provincial Synod of Westminster, approved by the Holy See. The same, moreover, is clear from the Decree of the Holy Office of Dec. 17, 1868. But as regards other regions the matter is controverted, and the case is still under judgment. Indeed, whether in general an adult to be baptized under condition, and whether in general a heretic to be baptized under condition, must confess the things they have committed since the last confession before repeated baptism, there are still two probable opinions among the doctors, even after the praised Decree of the Holy Office. For a Decree of this kind is not general, but is a Response for Neo-Converts in England. In that Response indeed the Sacred Congregation says that a similar Decree, issued on June 17, 1715, is to be given. But even this Decree is a particular Response. Indeed, when in the Question the question was concerning a certain Charles Wipperman, a German to be rebaptized, and the question was extended and made general - for it is said in the Question, both that care be taken for the salvation of him (Wipperman), and also that equal care be taken for the salvation of the others of that sect or religion, especially if they are ignorant - the Sacred Congregation with the greatest caution replied: "that Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized," evidently restricting its Decision to the individual person. Whence it is that this preceding Decree most evidently is not General. There is added that His Eminence Cardinal D'Annibale, who was Assessor of the Holy Office, certainly could, by consulting the Documents of the Holy Office, know the mind of the Sacred Congregation. Now in the last Edition made by the Author himself, namely in ed. 3 of the Summula Theologiae Moralis, p. 3, n. 301, note 3, these things are found: "Must, therefore, a heretic who, having returned to the faith, is rebaptized, confess the things which he admitted since the last confession before repeated baptism? Formerly Our men denied it, because the S. U. I. formerly seemed rather to advise this than to prescribe it. But on Dec. 17, 1868, consulting with the bishops of England, it judged that confession from neo-converts in England, and that integral, is to be required. Nevertheless, as regards other regions, I still think probable what Our men previously taught; 1. because the bishops of England had reported, among other things, that the younger men of the Anglican clergy faithfully observe the rite of baptizing... that most of them are those concerning the value of whose infant baptism it is not licit to doubt, etc.; 2. because the S. U. I. very cautiously replied: From Neo-Converts in England, etc."

Prescinding from heretics and Protestants, if there is discussion of others, no obligation of confession at all has been imposed by the S. C. And thus for catechumens in the Case of doubtful baptism, the Holy Office, Jan. 27, 1892, handing on the preceding Instruction of Aug. 1, 1860, decrees that there be added to this Instruction, "that if the catechumen has been invalidly baptized, he is to be baptized absolutely; but if he has been doubtfully baptized, he is to be baptized under condition." A. S. S. vol. 29, p. 570. Nor is anything had concerning confession. And in another Resolution, Dec. 2, 1874, soon to be reported in the Response to the 2nd, it indeed indicates the order to be followed in the confession and absolution itself, if confession is made, but makes no precept of confession.

Fr. Gury, Case 424, or rather his editor, Lyons 1885, assigns these reasons for that Decree for the English: "either because where there is question of the reception of sacraments which are necessary by necessity of means, the safer course is to be followed; or because baptism once certainly conferred is in possession, although there is doubt about its value, and therefore induces the obligation of confessing sins committed after it, so long as it is not certainly proved to have been invalid." But both these reasons are weak and by no means subsisting. For salvation in the Case is altogether placed in safety; since those sins committed before the repeated baptism, if they are not remitted by the repeated baptism, are certainly remitted indirectly by sacramental absolution, when he thereafter approaches to receive the sacrament of penance. But the possession of the prior baptism is probably doubtful; otherwise baptism could not be repeated. From that doubtful possession, therefore, a certain obligation cannot be drawn. For the rest, if that possession of the preceding baptism is of such force that it imposes a certain obligation of confession, then it can by no means at the same time admit the repeated conferral of baptism. And, if baptism is repeated, since it is not repeated except while the probability of its validity stands, the sins committed before it probably are not valid matter of absolution, and therefore again no certain obligation of confession can be given. Therefore the reason of the preceding Decree is to be drawn only from particular circumstances. Hence the Holy Office answered most cautiously: for neo-converts in England, etc.; Charles Ferdinand, etc. I. M. 672; Gury, Cases, ed. Lyons, year 1868.

To the 2nd. The response to the 2nd question is had from the S. C. itself in the cited Decree of June 17, 1715, where it is said: "that Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized under condition, and, baptism having been conferred, he is to confess the sins of his past life, and from them he is to be absolved under condition." Therefore baptism is to be put first, and then confession is to be made, as the right order of things demands, since penance presupposes baptism. But this does not prevent it from being possible to proceed otherwise also, namely that the confession first be heard, by which perhaps someone can be better disposed for baptism itself; but afterward, after baptism has been received, the confession being resumed summarily, he can be absolved. And this is also had from another Response of the same S. C., Dec. 2, 1874. "Can catechumens confess sacramentally before they are baptized, either absolutely or conditionally? - R. As regards confession before baptism to be conferred absolutely, Negatively; but if nevertheless the catechumen wishes to confess himself, let him be instructed that this can by no means be had under the character of a sacrament, since absolution cannot be imparted, nor is the missionary bound to observe secrecy. But if there is question of those who must be baptized under condition, then, for the greater facility of the ecclesiastical function, they can first be heard sacramentally as to the accusation of their faults; then after the conferral of baptism under condition, the confessor, again resuming with the penitent by summary heads those things of which he has already made accusation, absolves sacramentally likewise under condition." - Cf. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 644, 955, 957.

To the 3rd. It appears from what has been said that Caius is not to be disturbed because he thought that the aforesaid Decree did not contain a general law. Nor indeed, at least on account of parity of reason, does the aforesaid Decree seem to comprehend also the Case of Titius. For that Decree treats first generally of baptized Neo-Converts in England who are to be baptized again. It treats, moreover, of baptized Neo-Converts concerning the value of whose baptism it is for the most part not licit to doubt. But the Case of Titius is a certain altogether particular Case, and the validity of his baptism is seriously doubted. But given the difficulty of confession, which Titius openly manifested, Caius seems to have acted altogether prudently by not insisting on it, namely lest from this a very grave evil follow, that Titius be deterred from conversion. Nor indeed can another Decree of the Holy Office for Charles Wipperman be urged against Caius on account of identity of case, since his baptism had truly been doubtful, as appears from the exposition itself. For first, identity of case is not had from only one or another circumstance of cases, but from the complex of all the circumstances. Moreover, if identity of case is invoked, by that very fact it is affirmed that in reality in that Response there is question of a Resolution given for a singular case, which therefore does not pertain to another singular case. Moreover the Decision of the Sacred Congregation is of counsel and economy rather than preceptive, since those words let him confess, let him be absolved do not necessarily import a precept. And this indeed pertains to the prudence by which the S. C. is accustomed to define questions. For that which can be useful in one case and in one region on account of special circumstances is perhaps not useful, indeed perhaps could even be harmful, on account of other diverse circumstances, in another case and in another different region. Whence it is that unless there is first certainty concerning the general usefulness or necessity, the Sacred Congregations are not accustomed to issue a General Decree. But to assert that all Decrees of the Sacred Congregations have general force for all persons and for every place is against the very manner of proceeding of the same Sacred Congregations, which even in the titles themselves distinguish between particular Decrees and General Decrees. How many Responses indeed have come forth from the Sacred Congregation of the Council concerning the invalidity of clandestine marriages which are contracted by heretics where the Tridentine law is in force? Whence Fr. Gury, Comp. n. 841, judged that their validity must altogether be denied. But Benedict XIV, notwithstanding all those Decisions, affirms that nothing had yet been defined by the Apostolic See in any General Decree; and that the Responses of the Sacred Congregation are referred only to certain peculiar and various circumstances, and therefore were not always mutually conformable, since they were particular. See Const. Matrimonia, Nov. 4, 1741, § 2; de Synodo, l. 6, c. 6, n. 4. Likewise, how many Responses in more recent times did not come forth from the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars against the account of conscience to be rendered? Nevertheless the prohibition was not general, nor was there one, until the General Decree Quemadmodum came forth, Dec. 17, 1890. Indeed, as the S. Congregation itself declared by letter Jan. 20, 1891, even this Decree does not comprehend all religious Orders and all religious Congregations, but institutes of men by nature and governance entirely ecclesiastical are openly excepted. Likewise, how many Responses did not come forth from the Holy Office itself and from the Sacred Penitentiary concerning the illicitness of a sentence of divorce to be pronounced by a lay judge? Yet it was also positively declared that those decisions do not contain a General Decree for every region. See Enchiridion Morale, 3rd ed., p. 149. And, to pass over other things, the Sacred Congregation of Rites also, in the most recent Collection of Decrees which at present is being published in print, expressly distinguishes between General and Particular Decrees; and among the norms of this most recent Collection this was established in the 6th place: "The new general Decrees will have the title of Decretum or Decretum Generale according to the importance of the matter. The particular ones, however, will be named Dubii, Dubiorum, Romana, etc." To assert therefore that all Decrees of the Sacred Congregations are General, insofar namely as they contain a general force of comprehending all cases and of obliging all persons, is an assertion against the very Decrees of the same Sacred Congregations.

Nor finally, to demonstrate the universality if not of the Decree, at least of the matter itself, can there be objected the Decision of the Holy Office of July 20, 1859, by which, in the conversion of heretics, if baptism is to be repeated under condition, after abjuration or profession of faith, and after conditional baptism, sacramental confession with conditional absolution is established. For first, neither is this Decree of the Holy Office a General Decree, but a Response given to the Rt. Rev. Bishop of Philadelphia. But then what is said concerning the order to be observed in the conversion of heretics, if baptism is to be repeated under condition, is not a General Decree of the Sacred Congregation, but, as is expressly said there, it is an Instruction, and pertains to the Instruction. Hence it is clear that there is not had a universal law promulgated, nor a universal precept, but only an Instruction, to be most prudently observed where it can be done. And since in reality there is no universal law of this kind, and no universal precept, especially at present one must abstain from affirming it; since the Supreme Pontiff is expending every effort to recall Protestants and heretics into the bosom of the Catholic Church. Therefore judgment concerning this most grave matter is to be left to the same Supreme Pontiff when he himself judges it opportune, lest perhaps that desired return be impeded or rendered more difficult.

When a Case of this kind was proposed in the year 1897 in the public Conference of Cases of Conscience at St. Apollinaris, the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar of the City, and Secretary of the Holy Office, President of the Conference, with several other wise observations added, altogether approved and confirmed the preceding Resolution. - Cf. I. M. 672.